Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:11:39PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally
>>> require a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this
>>> is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process.
>> I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused.
>> links to
>> which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer
>> perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I
>> is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to
>> find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the
>> ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and
>> distributed as an official fedora spin.
>> That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't
>> really talk about timelines nor expectations.
> I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a
> month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was
> discussed or still needs to be figured out.
This is really something that, at this point, should be well
documented in the wiki and hooked from the main Spins SIG page.
Having processes rely on knowledgeable individuals is not scalable, as
we've found to our (unsurprised) dismay in Documentation.
Having the technical guidelines documented is a great step but there's
more to do to prevent spin owner frustration. Bryan Kearney went a
good ways toward a more detailed document at:
Are we waiting for the Spins SIG to find the next actions, and drive
this to completion? Or is this hanging elsewhere?
I think it just died because of $DAYJOB. Do folks want to get back
together to chat? I think with the advent of the new remix mark it makes
sense to discuss/amend the policy.